Man to be retried for possessing Vicodin WITH a prescription

shemp · 13th August 2007, 03:36 PM

Freed man faces new trial in Vicodin case

Quote:

The Hillsborough State Attorney's Office has decided not to drop charges against Mark O'Hara, who was freed from prison after an appeals court said he deserved a new trial.

Quote:

Tampa Airport Police arrested O'Hara in 2004 after they found 58 Vicodin pills and a small amount of marijuana in his illegally parked and unattended bread truck. He refused plea agreements before trial that would have given him one to three years in prison. Instead, jurors heard from two doctors who said they had been treating O'Hara since 1990 for pain relating to car accidents and gout.

However, jurors were not told that it is legal to possess Vicodin with a prescription, which O'Hara had. He was convicted and sentenced to 25 years in prison for drug trafficking.

Using words like "absurd" and "ridiculous", a three-judge appeals court overturned the conviction in July and ordered a new trial.

This case is an example of the insanity of the drug laws in many states:

link

Quote:

Prosecutors did not contend that O'Hara, who went to prison in the 1980s for cocaine trafficking, sold any of the 80 Vicodin pills he had been prescribed in the eight months before his arrest. Under the law, simply possessing the quantity of pills he had constitutes trafficking.

In other words, he wasn't using the Vicodin as fast as he was getting it from his doctor, so he had enough of it to fall afoul of Florida's law.

I have a prescription for Lorazepam, which is a Schedule IV drug under the federal Controlled Substances Act. I take this for occasional anxiety attacks, and with this prescription I get 30 pills. At the rate I take them, I only need about 30 pills per year. But my wife, who has had a heart attack, also has the same prescription. She takes them more frequently, maybe 50-60 per year. So at times we may have as many as 60 of these pills in our medicine cabinet. Wouldn't it be a wonderful thing if we went to jail for drug trafficking because we keep our prescribed controlled substance in the same house, in the same medicine cabinet?

At age 49, I don't think I'll live to see the day when the U.S. goverment ends this insane War on Drugs.

Miss Anthrope · 13th August 2007, 03:44 PM

Nothing I can say except that I'm disgusted.

student23 · 13th August 2007, 03:51 PM

what do you expect. it's a Bush state.

Miss Anthrope · 13th August 2007, 03:54 PM

Originally Posted by student23

what do you expect. it's a Bush state.

While I'm not fond of any of the Bushes in government, this is a problem bigger than that. The Governor doesn't really make these laws. The blame it on "what do you expect, insert repbulican figurehead here" philosophy is a major over-simplification.

This kind of enforcement of quantity=intent to sell laws happens in nearly, if not all states.

The Central Scrutinizer · 13th August 2007, 03:56 PM

When having Vicodin with a prescription is outlawed, only outlaws will have Vicodin with a prescription.

strathmeyer · 13th August 2007, 05:24 PM

You can't convict someone of trafficking when they weren't really trafficking? Next thing a judge in Virginia is going to rule you can't be charge with reckless driving unless you were actually driving recklessly.

Why doesn't this have any affect on the other illogical trafficking laws?

Bikewer · 13th August 2007, 05:31 PM

Miss Anthrope is right, nearly every state spells out in statute how much of whatever constitutes "intent to distribute". "Manufacturing" may come in to play if there is evidence of items intended to facilitate sales; baggies, scales, etc.
I am forced to wonder about the "possession" portion of this case. In Missouri, the contraband item must be shown to be in the immediate area of control of the individual.
These drugs being in an unattended auto would not normally be sufficient (at least locally) to make a case for possession unless the individual was actually in the car.

kiwimac · 13th August 2007, 07:00 PM

It is an absurd law. Having a prescription for the drug should have been enough to get the case tossed. Mere possession of an item does not equal illegality.

TheRedWorm · 13th August 2007, 07:04 PM

This is just wrong.

Esperdome · 13th August 2007, 08:51 PM

Could it be that it was the small amount of marijuana that did him in? They had to make an example of him.

shemp · 13th August 2007, 09:04 PM

Originally Posted by Esperdome

Could it be that it was the small amount of marijuana that did him in? They had to make an example of him.

He is being tried for "trafficking" in Vicodin. I do not know what became of marijuana charges, if any. Of course, my position on marijuana is legalize it.

Esperdome · 13th August 2007, 09:27 PM

My point being that without the marijuana being present, the Vicodin possession wouldn't have been considered a crime. His sin was possession of marijuana, and the Vicodin gave prosecutors a hammer to smash him with.

Kevin_Lowe · 13th August 2007, 09:56 PM

According to posters on fark.com, the issue is that in Florida established case law says that it is not a defence to a trafficking charge to have a prescription, and so juries cannot be informed that defendants have a prescription for the drugs they are accused of trafficking.

That is so ridiculous I would find it hard to believe, if it wasn't for all the other daft laws allegedly aimed at curbing drug use.

Miss Anthrope · 13th August 2007, 10:08 PM

Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe

According to posters on fark.com, the issue is that in Florida established case law says that it is not a defence to a trafficking charge to have a prescription, and so juries cannot be informed that defendants have a prescription for the drugs they are accused of trafficking.

That is so ridiculous I would find it hard to believe, if it wasn't for all the other daft laws allegedly aimed at curbing drug use.

That's so unbelievably unjust.

MelBrooksfan · 13th August 2007, 10:17 PM

Originally Posted by strathmeyer

You can't convict someone of trafficking when they weren't really trafficking? Next thing a judge in Virginia is going to rule you can't be charge with reckless driving unless you were actually driving recklessly.

Why doesn't this have any affect on the other illogical trafficking laws?

That's how most of them work. If you have greater than quantity X they nail you for intent to sell and the like.

shecky · 13th August 2007, 11:12 PM

Quote:

Under the law, simply possessing the quantity of pills he had constitutes trafficking.

What Would Rush Limbaugh Do?

ponderingturtle · 14th August 2007, 07:05 AM

Originally Posted by shecky

What Would Rush Limbaugh Do?

Finish all the pills in two days?

Also he might not have been storeing them up, if he was taking a few pills a day that would be less than a 30 day supply.

timhau · 14th August 2007, 07:10 AM

Was this a doctor who walks with a cane and who had been rude to the arresting officer earlier?

Darth Rotor · 14th August 2007, 07:14 AM

Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe

According to posters on fark.com, the issue is that in Florida established case law says that it is not a defence to a trafficking charge to have a prescription, and so juries cannot be informed that defendants have a prescription for the drugs they are accused of trafficking.

That is so ridiculous I would find it hard to believe, if it wasn't for all the other daft laws allegedly aimed at curbing drug use.

I share your disbelief.

This sort of energetic pursuit of the non threat, when the war on drugs had as its target the major distribution networks (at one time) who are well armed with lawyers, bankers, and accountants who help put up smoke screens is all to common a scenario. The Clinton era "Three Strikes and you are out" and "minimum sentencing" rules are two of the dumbest additions to the US legal system in my lifetime.

I am baffled that "having a prescription" is not admissable evidence, though having one might be voided as an excuse if the evidence could show that one was abusing a perscription and trafficking in a perscribed drug. That draconian response to people "possessing" rather than "trafficking" seems to me to need revocation.

DR

SteveGrenard · 14th August 2007, 07:24 AM

I think it is a matter of location. Geez, the guy had 58 Vicodin pills in a bread truck, not at home in the medicine chest. What was his intent in having so many Vicodin's available in a mobile vehicle? I'd like to hear his reason for having that many pills available to himself to be kept in what was probably his employer's vehicle. There is nothing about him just picking them up at the pharmacy but only that he had an RX. People do sell their prescription drugs and this is illegal.

chulbert · 14th August 2007, 07:28 AM

Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe

According to posters on fark.com, the issue is that in Florida established case law says that it is not a defence to a trafficking charge to have a prescription,...

This makes some sense. Just because you have a prescription doesn't mean you aren't trafficking the extra pills you don't need.

Quote:

...and so juries cannot be informed that defendants have a prescription for the drugs they are accused of trafficking.

This I don't understand. While a prescription does not necessarily counter a trafficking charge, clearly it should be part of the defense.

That said, the man had almost two full refills (assuming a 30-day supply) of pain killers, not in his bathroom medicine cabinet, but in the vehicle of his employer: a delivery truck. I'm going to go out on a limb here and speculate they weren't exactly in the original bottles from the pharmacy either. Additionally, he had stored marijuana in the same vehicle.

I think there's something fishy about the whole situation, though fishy doesn't mean guilty.

That said, I'm not much of a fan of the war on drugs and I bet there are more effective uses of Florida tax dollars.

ETA - Curse your black heart and fast fingers, SteveGrenard.

Darth Rotor · 14th August 2007, 07:28 AM

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard

Geez, the guy had 58 Vicodin pills in a bread truck, not at home in the medicine chest. What was his intent in having so many Vicodin's available in a mobile vehicle? I'd like to hear his reason for having that many pills available to himself to be kept in what was probably his employer's vehicle. There is nothing about him just picking them up at the pharmacy but only that he had an RX. People do sell their prescription drugs and this is illegal.

I don't see 25 years as anything remotely reasonable for small time selling, if that is in fact what he did, or was doing, nor for the small amount of dope.

A few months in the can, maybe a year for a repeat offender? I can see it.

My two cents.

DR

corplinx · 14th August 2007, 07:43 AM

Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe

According to posters on fark.com, the issue is that in Florida established case law says that it is not a defence to a trafficking charge to have a prescription, and so juries cannot be informed that defendants have a prescription for the drugs they are accused of trafficking.

That is so ridiculous I would find it hard to believe, if it wasn't for all the other daft laws allegedly aimed at curbing drug use.

Typically, doctor shoppers have a prescription for what the traffic. In fact, they have a ton of prescriptions. It sounds like they made the law to try to close off the defense doctor shoppers would take. However, the lack of prudence in the prosection of this man shows the flaw in the law. It trusts them to only bust/prosecute guilty people.

However, this man's story is well known and I doubt anything will come of this.

Its a case of good intentions/bad results. Doctor shoppers are flooding the streets with Xanax, Oxycontin, and other dangerous pills. The day they fix doctor shopping, a few weeks later the hospitals get filled with people having Xanax withdrawal seizures and hallucinations. The black market for pills is a nasty thing.

SteveGrenard · 14th August 2007, 07:43 AM

The long sentences for non-violent crimes such as small scale selling and the war on drugs (for adults) are another matter. I am talking about what probably made the police suspicious of him in the first place. After my heart surgery I was able to get out and around and was given a prescription for Vicodin, 60 tablets, which if you were really in pain you could finish in 10-days to two weeks. I didn't carry the rather bulky jar (these are large pills) around with me in my car. It was kept home in a safe place. I am not going to drive under the influence of an opiate so I would have no reason to take any of these pills with me, let alone as many as this guy had.

Also the account didn't say whether he had the Vicodin's in a legal
prescription jar or if he had transferred what was nearly an entire prescription to some other kind of container which would also raise suspicion if true.

ponderingturtle · 14th August 2007, 07:44 AM

Originally Posted by chulbert

That said, the man had almost two full refills (assuming a 30-day supply) of pain killers, not in his bathroom medicine cabinet, but in the vehicle of his employer: a delivery truck. I'm going to go out on a limb here and speculate they weren't exactly in the original bottles from the pharmacy either. Additionally, he had stored marijuana in the same vehicle.

So he should not carry his medication with him? And damn him if he has a perscription for more than one pill a day?

So if you have a perscription for say one pill every 12 hours and just take the bottle with you, you deserve a 20 year prison sentance for that.

baron · 14th August 2007, 07:50 AM

25 years? That's a crime in itself. The judge should be imprisoned, along with all those implicit in the sentencing, and I mean that.

Darth Rotor · 14th August 2007, 07:50 AM

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard

The long sentences for non-violent crimes such as small scale selling and the war on drugs (for adults) are another matter. I am talking about what probably made the police suspicious of him in the first place. After my heart surgery I was able to get out and around and was given a prescription for Vicodin, 60 tablets, which if you were really in pain you could finish in 10-days to two weeks. I didn't carry the rather bulky jar (these are large pills) around with me in my car. It was kept home in a safe place. I am not going to drive under the influence of an opiate so I would have no reason to take any of these pills with me, let alone as many as this guy had.

Also the account didn't say whether he had the Vicodin's in a legal
prescription jar or if he had transferred what was nearly an entire prescription to some other kind of container which would also raise suspicion if true.

I see your point on "probable cause" for the "possession with intent to distribute. It is still up to the State to prove it, and the real problem, IMO, the accessries, are the doctors who acquiesce to being the connections. Of course, doctors have a variety of motivations for ensuring their patients are not in pain, so it isn't as simple as my sentence might imply.

DR

Beerina · 14th August 2007, 07:55 AM

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard

I think it is a matter of location. Geez, the guy had 58 Vicodin pills in a bread truck, not at home in the medicine chest. What was his intent in having so many Vicodin's available in a mobile vehicle?

Some of my medicines are 3-a-days. This means when I get a fresh bottle, it's 90 pills.

If I travel somewhere, I take the entire bottle with me.

If this guy got his next month's supply without fully using them up, he could very well be in a similar boat. Just take the one bottle with you, end of story. Nobody sits there and thinks, gee, I only need 4 pills for the next day, so that's what I'll take in a special bottle.

In this particular case, I think:

1. The government should not be permitted to forbid introduction of evidence that he had a prescription for them. Isn't that what a defense is for?!?!? Whatever happened to the whole truth?

2. He could, of course, be doing a little small-time re-selling of his unused portion. However, if that is the case, the government should be required to demonstrate this via some sting type operation or other evidence, and not just presume quantity X is evidence of trafficking on the face of it.

drkitten · 14th August 2007, 08:23 AM

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

So he should not carry his medication with him?

While driving?

Um,.... will you think less of me if I say "no, he shoudn't"?

Hell, I'm not even allowed to have an empty can of beer in the car with me. I don't see why anyone in his right mind should drag a month's supply of a narcotic around with him.

Quote:

So if you have a perscription for say one pill every 12 hours and just take the bottle with you, you deserve a 20 year prison sentance for that.

Only if the jury doesn't believe him. Just because he says he wasn't trafficking doesn't mean that he wasn't. If you find me sitting outside of your house in the middle of the night with a set of lock picks, are you going to take my word for it that, no, I'm not planning a burglary; I always walk around at night with burglary tools in my pockets?

ponderingturtle · 14th August 2007, 08:35 AM

Originally Posted by drkitten

While driving?

Um,.... will you think less of me if I say "no, he shoudn't"?

Hell, I'm not even allowed to have an empty can of beer in the car with me. I don't see why anyone in his right mind should drag a month's supply of a narcotic around with him.

This must make it difficult to legaly return beer cans for recycling.

So how should people get their medication home, walk I guess. And as he was not charged with operating a vehical under the influence.

Quote:

Only if the jury doesn't believe him. Just because he says he wasn't trafficking doesn't mean that he wasn't. If you find me sitting outside of your house in the middle of the night with a set of lock picks, are you going to take my word for it that, no, I'm not planning a burglary; I always walk around at night with burglary tools in my pockets?

Look he had a couple of days supply for a serious addict, Rush could go through that in a weekend, so obviously rush should have been charged with trafficing because of the ammounts of drugs he was getting.

strathmeyer · 14th August 2007, 08:43 AM

Originally Posted by MelBrooksfan

That's how most of them work. If you have greater than quantity X they nail you for intent to sell and the like.

I'm sorry; I understand the laws and was unable to satirize my disbelief in a properly coherent way. By extreme disbelief, in fact, made me incoherent. I'm better now.

chulbert · 14th August 2007, 10:07 AM

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

So he should not carry his medication with him?

Vicodin? On a job that requires driving? No, I don't think so.

Quote:

So if you have a perscription for say one pill every 12 hours and just take the bottle with you, you deserve a 20 year prison sentance for that.

No, I don't think he deserves 20 years of prison. However, I also doubt he was "just a man with his pain pills".

pgwenthold · 14th August 2007, 10:25 AM

Originally Posted by chulbert

No, I don't think he deserves 20 years of prison. However, I also doubt he was "just a man with his pain pills".

I tend to agree, but then again, isn't that for a jury to decide? And while I tend to think that the prescription doesn't mean much (it is perfectly possible to deal vicodin by getting a prescription) it is definately information that the defense should be allowed to present. Again, it is for the jury to determine whether it is relevent or not, and it should not get in the way of a good prosecution. IOW, I think the prosecutor should be able to prove trafficking beyond the level of mere possession. You and drkitten are correct. The case against him is not that he has Vicodin in his possession, but in a vehicle? Prescribed or not, that is not something that makes sense. But I repeat, that's for a jury to decide and pretty much irrelevent to the point.

ponderingturtle · 14th August 2007, 10:31 AM

Originally Posted by chulbert

Vicodin? On a job that requires driving? No, I don't think so.

Where is your evidence that it effects driving when taken in a manor perscribed by legitimate doctors?

I know that shortly after my mother came home from her double knee replacement, she would drive herself to rehab, and was certainly on narcotic pain killers.

Quote:

No, I don't think he deserves 20 years of prison. However, I also doubt he was "just a man with his pain pills".

Evidence?

Miss Anthrope · 14th August 2007, 10:31 AM

Originally Posted by pgwenthold

I tend to agree, but then again, isn't that for a jury to decide? And while I tend to think that the prescription doesn't mean much (it is perfectly possible to deal vicodin by getting a prescription) it is definately information that the defense should be allowed to present. Again, it is for the jury to determine whether it is relevent or not, and it should not get in the way of a good prosecution. IOW, I think the prosecutor should be able to prove trafficking beyond the level of mere possession. You and drkitten are correct. The case against him is not that he has Vicodin in his possession, but in a vehicle? Prescribed or not, that is not something that makes sense. But I repeat, that's for a jury to decide and pretty much irrelevent to the point.

Agreed. The fact that he cannot introduce his prescription at all tells me the trial cannot be fair. Thus, I don't support his retrial. I know that's a position that can be criticized, but, it's where I stand.

slingblade · 14th August 2007, 10:33 AM

Because of my mom, I'm in a house full of morphine right now. It scares me a bit.

A friend of mine was charged with manslaughter, because when her husband died from cancer, she negelected to throw away all his medications. She didn't get rid of very much of his stuff; her grief was too fresh. One night, a friend came over, with a couple of young people in tow. At some point, one of the teens went to the bathroom, then wandered into the bedroom without permission, dug around, found the oxycontin, and took...I don't know how many; more than one. And he died.

IIRC, she was convicted. I don't know if she ever served any time, or got probation; I moved away and never heard. But I had talked to her many times during the whole mess. She was not only grieving two people, she was terrified. And frankly, she hadn't even thought about someone taking those pills, hadn't thought to throw them away.

It seemed to me more like the kid killed himself with stupidity. Apparently the law didn't see it that way.

BTW, Mom is doing fine.

ponderingturtle · 14th August 2007, 10:34 AM

Originally Posted by pgwenthold

I tend to agree, but then again, isn't that for a jury to decide? And while I tend to think that the prescription doesn't mean much (it is perfectly possible to deal vicodin by getting a prescription) it is definately information that the defense should be allowed to present. Again, it is for the jury to determine whether it is relevent or not, and it should not get in the way of a good prosecution. IOW, I think the prosecutor should be able to prove trafficking beyond the level of mere possession. You and drkitten are correct. The case against him is not that he has Vicodin in his possession, but in a vehicle? Prescribed or not, that is not something that makes sense. But I repeat, that's for a jury to decide and pretty much irrelevent to the point.

How can you support a trafficing charge when the only basis for it is the number of pills he had, and they are not an unreasonable ammount for a single 30 day perscription?

Remember folks this is what a serious addict like Rush would go through in a weekend, so it is not a massive ammount of the medication.

Charlie Monoxide · 14th August 2007, 10:41 AM

For the people that live in the US, keep reminding yourselves you live in the "freest" country in the world.

These "freedoms" end though, if "illegal/legal drugs" or perceived "terrorism" are involved ...

Charlie (the drugs laws are insane) Monoxide

pgwenthold · 14th August 2007, 10:51 AM

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

How can you support a trafficing charge when the only basis for it is the number of pills he had, and they are not an unreasonable ammount for a single 30 day perscription?

Remember folks this is what a serious addict like Rush would go through in a weekend, so it is not a massive ammount of the medication.

Did you miss this comment I made: "IOW, I think the prosecutor should be able to prove trafficking beyond the level of mere possession."

ponderingturtle · 14th August 2007, 11:08 AM

Originally Posted by pgwenthold

Did you miss this comment I made: "IOW, I think the prosecutor should be able to prove trafficking beyond the level of mere possession."

That is generaly based on the ammount of drug in possession, and in this case it was not even an ammount that is odd for a 30 days.

So I have not seen any evidence that at normal doses such pain medication would prevent people from driving. It is kind of like just because you have some alcohol in your system does not mean you are doing anything illegal to be driving.

13th August 2007, 03:36 PM	#1
shemp Timothy, Timothy, where on earth did you go? Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: trapped in a cave-in with Joe Posts: 12,885	Man to be retried for possessing Vicodin WITH a prescription Freed man faces new trial in Vicodin case Quote: The Hillsborough State Attorney's Office has decided not to drop charges against Mark O'Hara, who was freed from prison after an appeals court said he deserved a new trial. Quote: Tampa Airport Police arrested O'Hara in 2004 after they found 58 Vicodin pills and a small amount of marijuana in his illegally parked and unattended bread truck. He refused plea agreements before trial that would have given him one to three years in prison. Instead, jurors heard from two doctors who said they had been treating O'Hara since 1990 for pain relating to car accidents and gout. However, jurors were not told that it is legal to possess Vicodin with a prescription, which O'Hara had. He was convicted and sentenced to 25 years in prison for drug trafficking. Using words like "absurd" and "ridiculous", a three-judge appeals court overturned the conviction in July and ordered a new trial. This case is an example of the insanity of the drug laws in many states: link Quote: Prosecutors did not contend that O'Hara, who went to prison in the 1980s for cocaine trafficking, sold any of the 80 Vicodin pills he had been prescribed in the eight months before his arrest. Under the law, simply possessing the quantity of pills he had constitutes trafficking. In other words, he wasn't using the Vicodin as fast as he was getting it from his doctor, so he had enough of it to fall afoul of Florida's law. I have a prescription for Lorazepam, which is a Schedule IV drug under the federal Controlled Substances Act. I take this for occasional anxiety attacks, and with this prescription I get 30 pills. At the rate I take them, I only need about 30 pills per year. But my wife, who has had a heart attack, also has the same prescription. She takes them more frequently, maybe 50-60 per year. So at times we may have as many as 60 of these pills in our medicine cabinet. Wouldn't it be a wonderful thing if we went to jail for drug trafficking because we keep our prescribed controlled substance in the same house, in the same medicine cabinet? At age 49, I don't think I'll live to see the day when the U.S. goverment ends this insane War on Drugs.
	__________________ Church on Sunday, sleep and nod Tryin' to duck the wrath of God Preacher's fillin' us with fright Tryin' to tell us what he thinks is right He really got to be some kind of nut (I can't use it!) Tryin' to make it real - compared to what?

13th August 2007, 03:44 PM	#2
Miss Anthrope All your post are belong to us Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: A Tiny Oasis in the PNW Posts: 3,597	Nothing I can say except that I'm disgusted.
	__________________ We're not elected officials, nor are we paid professionals. You want us to act as such? Fine. Cough up the cash - because as a professional, I don't come cheap."-Jmercer, who happens to rock.[/color]

13th August 2007, 03:51 PM	#3
student23 New Blood Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 7	what do you expect. it's a Bush state.
student23 New Blood Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 7

13th August 2007, 03:54 PM	#4
Miss Anthrope All your post are belong to us Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: A Tiny Oasis in the PNW Posts: 3,597	Originally Posted by student23 what do you expect. it's a Bush state. While I'm not fond of any of the Bushes in government, this is a problem bigger than that. The Governor doesn't really make these laws. The blame it on "what do you expect, insert repbulican figurehead here" philosophy is a major over-simplification. This kind of enforcement of quantity=intent to sell laws happens in nearly, if not all states.
	__________________ We're not elected officials, nor are we paid professionals. You want us to act as such? Fine. Cough up the cash - because as a professional, I don't come cheap."-Jmercer, who happens to rock.[/color]

13th August 2007, 03:56 PM	#5
The Central Scrutinizer Penultimate Amazing Pither Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: The White Zone Posts: 42,266	When having Vicodin with a prescription is outlawed, only outlaws will have Vicodin with a prescription.
	__________________ If I see somebody with a gun on a plane? I'll kill him.

13th August 2007, 05:24 PM	#6
strathmeyer seriously unable to be serious Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Pittsburgh, PA, USA Posts: 2,382	You can't convict someone of trafficking when they weren't really trafficking? Next thing a judge in Virginia is going to rule you can't be charge with reckless driving unless you were actually driving recklessly. Why doesn't this have any affect on the other illogical trafficking laws?

13th August 2007, 05:31 PM	#7
Bikewer Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: St. Louis, Mo. Posts: 9,522	Miss Anthrope is right, nearly every state spells out in statute how much of whatever constitutes "intent to distribute". "Manufacturing" may come in to play if there is evidence of items intended to facilitate sales; baggies, scales, etc. I am forced to wonder about the "possession" portion of this case. In Missouri, the contraband item must be shown to be in the immediate area of control of the individual. These drugs being in an unattended auto would not normally be sufficient (at least locally) to make a case for possession unless the individual was actually in the car.

13th August 2007, 07:00 PM	#8
kiwimac New Blood Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 24	It is an absurd law. Having a prescription for the drug should have been enough to get the case tossed. Mere possession of an item does not equal illegality.
kiwimac New Blood Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 24

13th August 2007, 07:04 PM	#9
TheRedWorm I AM the Red Worm! Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Body: Michigan, Heart: Chicago Posts: 3,886	This is just wrong.

13th August 2007, 08:51 PM	#10
Esperdome Remedial Humorist Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Houston, TX Posts: 4,066	Could it be that it was the small amount of marijuana that did him in? They had to make an example of him.
	__________________ "My Ed, but you are perhaps the most perplexing poster this forum has ever encountered." Rob Lister Junior Tosser, Loose popgun below decks. Visit The Dome "If it keeps on raining, the levee's going to break." Led Zeppelin

13th August 2007, 09:04 PM	#11
shemp Timothy, Timothy, where on earth did you go? Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: trapped in a cave-in with Joe Posts: 12,885	Originally Posted by Esperdome Could it be that it was the small amount of marijuana that did him in? They had to make an example of him. He is being tried for "trafficking" in Vicodin. I do not know what became of marijuana charges, if any. Of course, my position on marijuana is legalize it.
	__________________ Church on Sunday, sleep and nod Tryin' to duck the wrath of God Preacher's fillin' us with fright Tryin' to tell us what he thinks is right He really got to be some kind of nut (I can't use it!) Tryin' to make it real - compared to what?

13th August 2007, 09:27 PM	#12
Esperdome Remedial Humorist Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Houston, TX Posts: 4,066	My point being that without the marijuana being present, the Vicodin possession wouldn't have been considered a crime. His sin was possession of marijuana, and the Vicodin gave prosecutors a hammer to smash him with.
	__________________ "My Ed, but you are perhaps the most perplexing poster this forum has ever encountered." Rob Lister Junior Tosser, Loose popgun below decks. Visit The Dome "If it keeps on raining, the levee's going to break." Led Zeppelin

13th August 2007, 09:56 PM	#13
Kevin_Lowe Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Queensland Posts: 10,275	According to posters on fark.com, the issue is that in Florida established case law says that it is not a defence to a trafficking charge to have a prescription, and so juries cannot be informed that defendants have a prescription for the drugs they are accused of trafficking. That is so ridiculous I would find it hard to believe, if it wasn't for all the other daft laws allegedly aimed at curbing drug use.
	__________________ Thinking is skilled work....People with untrained minds should no more expect to think clearly and logically than people who have never learned and never practiced can expect to find themselves good carpenters, golfers, bridge-players, or pianists. -- Alfred Mander

13th August 2007, 10:08 PM	#14
Miss Anthrope All your post are belong to us Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: A Tiny Oasis in the PNW Posts: 3,597	Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe According to posters on fark.com, the issue is that in Florida established case law says that it is not a defence to a trafficking charge to have a prescription, and so juries cannot be informed that defendants have a prescription for the drugs they are accused of trafficking. That is so ridiculous I would find it hard to believe, if it wasn't for all the other daft laws allegedly aimed at curbing drug use. That's so unbelievably unjust.
	__________________ We're not elected officials, nor are we paid professionals. You want us to act as such? Fine. Cough up the cash - because as a professional, I don't come cheap."-Jmercer, who happens to rock.[/color]

13th August 2007, 10:17 PM	#15
MelBrooksfan Graduate Poster Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 1,011	Originally Posted by strathmeyer You can't convict someone of trafficking when they weren't really trafficking? Next thing a judge in Virginia is going to rule you can't be charge with reckless driving unless you were actually driving recklessly. Why doesn't this have any affect on the other illogical trafficking laws? That's how most of them work. If you have greater than quantity X they nail you for intent to sell and the like.

13th August 2007, 11:12 PM	#16
shecky Master Poster Join Date: May 2002 Location: Home of the Homeless Posts: 2,190	Quote: Under the law, simply possessing the quantity of pills he had constitutes trafficking. What Would Rush Limbaugh Do?
	__________________ "People such as scientist Stephen Hawking wouldn’t have a chance in the U.K., where the National Health Service would say the life of this brilliant man, because of his physical handicaps, is essentially worthless." - Investors Business Daily

14th August 2007, 07:05 AM	#17
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Tarrytown, NY Posts: 26,421	Originally Posted by shecky What Would Rush Limbaugh Do? Finish all the pills in two days? Also he might not have been storeing them up, if he was taking a few pills a day that would be less than a 30 day supply.
	__________________ Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no poofing in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin

14th August 2007, 07:10 AM	#18
timhau NWO Litter Technician Join Date: May 2004 Location: East of Sweeden Posts: 9,657	Was this a doctor who walks with a cane and who had been rude to the arresting officer earlier?

14th August 2007, 07:14 AM	#19
Darth Rotor Salted Sith Cynic Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Rat cheer Posts: 34,255	Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe According to posters on fark.com, the issue is that in Florida established case law says that it is not a defence to a trafficking charge to have a prescription, and so juries cannot be informed that defendants have a prescription for the drugs they are accused of trafficking. That is so ridiculous I would find it hard to believe, if it wasn't for all the other daft laws allegedly aimed at curbing drug use. I share your disbelief. This sort of energetic pursuit of the non threat, when the war on drugs had as its target the major distribution networks (at one time) who are well armed with lawyers, bankers, and accountants who help put up smoke screens is all to common a scenario. The Clinton era "Three Strikes and you are out" and "minimum sentencing" rules are two of the dumbest additions to the US legal system in my lifetime. I am baffled that "having a prescription" is not admissable evidence, though having one might be voided as an excuse if the evidence could show that one was abusing a perscription and trafficking in a perscribed drug. That draconian response to people "possessing" rather than "trafficking" seems to me to need revocation. DR
	__________________ Helicopters don't so much fly as beat the air into submission. "Jesus wept, but did He laugh?"--F.H. Buckley____"There is one thing that was too great for God to show us when He walked upon our earth ... His mirth." --Chesterton__"If the barbarian in us is excised, so is our humanity."--D'rok__ "I only use my gun whenever kindness fails."-- Robert Earl Keen__"Sturgeon spares none.". -- The Marquis

14th August 2007, 07:24 AM	#20
SteveGrenard Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Wherever the airline sends my luggage Posts: 5,528	I think it is a matter of location. Geez, the guy had 58 Vicodin pills in a bread truck, not at home in the medicine chest. What was his intent in having so many Vicodin's available in a mobile vehicle? I'd like to hear his reason for having that many pills available to himself to be kept in what was probably his employer's vehicle. There is nothing about him just picking them up at the pharmacy but only that he had an RX. People do sell their prescription drugs and this is illegal.
	__________________ "We are facing a neurosis at the level of an entire civilization” Pierre Rehov Last edited by SteveGrenard; 14th August 2007 at 07:29 AM.

14th August 2007, 07:28 AM	#21
chulbert Muse Join Date: May 2002 Location: Rochester, NY Posts: 725	Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe According to posters on fark.com, the issue is that in Florida established case law says that it is not a defence to a trafficking charge to have a prescription,... This makes some sense. Just because you have a prescription doesn't mean you aren't trafficking the extra pills you don't need. Quote: ...and so juries cannot be informed that defendants have a prescription for the drugs they are accused of trafficking. This I don't understand. While a prescription does not necessarily counter a trafficking charge, clearly it should be part of the defense. That said, the man had almost two full refills (assuming a 30-day supply) of pain killers, not in his bathroom medicine cabinet, but in the vehicle of his employer: a delivery truck. I'm going to go out on a limb here and speculate they weren't exactly in the original bottles from the pharmacy either. Additionally, he had stored marijuana in the same vehicle. I think there's something fishy about the whole situation, though fishy doesn't mean guilty. That said, I'm not much of a fan of the war on drugs and I bet there are more effective uses of Florida tax dollars. ETA - Curse your black heart and fast fingers, SteveGrenard.

14th August 2007, 07:28 AM	#22
Darth Rotor Salted Sith Cynic Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Rat cheer Posts: 34,255	Originally Posted by SteveGrenard Geez, the guy had 58 Vicodin pills in a bread truck, not at home in the medicine chest. What was his intent in having so many Vicodin's available in a mobile vehicle? I'd like to hear his reason for having that many pills available to himself to be kept in what was probably his employer's vehicle. There is nothing about him just picking them up at the pharmacy but only that he had an RX. People do sell their prescription drugs and this is illegal. I don't see 25 years as anything remotely reasonable for small time selling, if that is in fact what he did, or was doing, nor for the small amount of dope. A few months in the can, maybe a year for a repeat offender? I can see it. My two cents. DR
	__________________ Helicopters don't so much fly as beat the air into submission. "Jesus wept, but did He laugh?"--F.H. Buckley____"There is one thing that was too great for God to show us when He walked upon our earth ... His mirth." --Chesterton__"If the barbarian in us is excised, so is our humanity."--D'rok__ "I only use my gun whenever kindness fails."-- Robert Earl Keen__"Sturgeon spares none.". -- The Marquis

14th August 2007, 07:43 AM	#23
corplinx JREF Kid Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 8,944	Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe According to posters on fark.com, the issue is that in Florida established case law says that it is not a defence to a trafficking charge to have a prescription, and so juries cannot be informed that defendants have a prescription for the drugs they are accused of trafficking. That is so ridiculous I would find it hard to believe, if it wasn't for all the other daft laws allegedly aimed at curbing drug use. Typically, doctor shoppers have a prescription for what the traffic. In fact, they have a ton of prescriptions. It sounds like they made the law to try to close off the defense doctor shoppers would take. However, the lack of prudence in the prosection of this man shows the flaw in the law. It trusts them to only bust/prosecute guilty people. However, this man's story is well known and I doubt anything will come of this. Its a case of good intentions/bad results. Doctor shoppers are flooding the streets with Xanax, Oxycontin, and other dangerous pills. The day they fix doctor shopping, a few weeks later the hospitals get filled with people having Xanax withdrawal seizures and hallucinations. The black market for pills is a nasty thing.
corplinx JREF Kid Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 8,944

14th August 2007, 07:44 AM	#25
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Tarrytown, NY Posts: 26,421	Originally Posted by chulbert That said, the man had almost two full refills (assuming a 30-day supply) of pain killers, not in his bathroom medicine cabinet, but in the vehicle of his employer: a delivery truck. I'm going to go out on a limb here and speculate they weren't exactly in the original bottles from the pharmacy either. Additionally, he had stored marijuana in the same vehicle. So he should not carry his medication with him? And damn him if he has a perscription for more than one pill a day? So if you have a perscription for say one pill every 12 hours and just take the bottle with you, you deserve a 20 year prison sentance for that.
	__________________ Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no poofing in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin

14th August 2007, 07:50 AM	#26
baron Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Hill Posts: 1,910	25 years? That's a crime in itself. The judge should be imprisoned, along with all those implicit in the sentencing, and I mean that.
	__________________

14th August 2007, 07:50 AM	#27
Darth Rotor Salted Sith Cynic Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Rat cheer Posts: 34,255	Originally Posted by SteveGrenard The long sentences for non-violent crimes such as small scale selling and the war on drugs (for adults) are another matter. I am talking about what probably made the police suspicious of him in the first place. After my heart surgery I was able to get out and around and was given a prescription for Vicodin, 60 tablets, which if you were really in pain you could finish in 10-days to two weeks. I didn't carry the rather bulky jar (these are large pills) around with me in my car. It was kept home in a safe place. I am not going to drive under the influence of an opiate so I would have no reason to take any of these pills with me, let alone as many as this guy had. Also the account didn't say whether he had the Vicodin's in a legal prescription jar or if he had transferred what was nearly an entire prescription to some other kind of container which would also raise suspicion if true. I see your point on "probable cause" for the "possession with intent to distribute. It is still up to the State to prove it, and the real problem, IMO, the accessries, are the doctors who acquiesce to being the connections. Of course, doctors have a variety of motivations for ensuring their patients are not in pain, so it isn't as simple as my sentence might imply. DR
	__________________ Helicopters don't so much fly as beat the air into submission. "Jesus wept, but did He laugh?"--F.H. Buckley____"There is one thing that was too great for God to show us when He walked upon our earth ... His mirth." --Chesterton__"If the barbarian in us is excised, so is our humanity."--D'rok__ "I only use my gun whenever kindness fails."-- Robert Earl Keen__"Sturgeon spares none.". -- The Marquis

14th August 2007, 07:55 AM	#28
Beerina Sarcastic Conqueror of Notions Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: A floating island above the clouds Posts: 23,835	Originally Posted by SteveGrenard I think it is a matter of location. Geez, the guy had 58 Vicodin pills in a bread truck, not at home in the medicine chest. What was his intent in having so many Vicodin's available in a mobile vehicle? Some of my medicines are 3-a-days. This means when I get a fresh bottle, it's 90 pills. If I travel somewhere, I take the entire bottle with me. If this guy got his next month's supply without fully using them up, he could very well be in a similar boat. Just take the one bottle with you, end of story. Nobody sits there and thinks, gee, I only need 4 pills for the next day, so that's what I'll take in a special bottle. In this particular case, I think: 1. The government should not be permitted to forbid introduction of evidence that he had a prescription for them. *Isn't that what a defense is for?!?!?* Whatever happened to the *whole* truth? 2. He could, of course, be doing a little small-time re-selling of his unused portion. However, if that is the case, the government should be required to demonstrate this via some sting type operation or other evidence, and not just presume quantity X is evidence of trafficking on the face of it.
	__________________ "Great innovations should not be forced [by way of] slender majorities." - Thomas Jefferson The government should nationalize it! Socialized, single-payer video game development and sales *now!* More, cheaper, better games, right? Right?

14th August 2007, 08:23 AM	#29
drkitten Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Wits' End Posts: 21,647	Originally Posted by ponderingturtle So he should not carry his medication with him? While driving? Um,.... will you think less of me if I say "no, he shoudn't"? Hell, I'm not even allowed to have an empty can of beer in the car with me. I don't see why anyone in his right mind should drag a month's supply of a narcotic around with him. Quote: So if you have a perscription for say one pill every 12 hours and just take the bottle with you, you deserve a 20 year prison sentance for that. Only if the jury doesn't believe him. Just because he says he wasn't trafficking doesn't mean that he wasn't. If you find me sitting outside of your house in the middle of the night with a set of lock picks, are you going to take my word for it that, no, I'm not planning a burglary; I always walk around at night with burglary tools in my pockets?

14th August 2007, 08:35 AM	#30
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Tarrytown, NY Posts: 26,421	Originally Posted by drkitten While driving? Um,.... will you think less of me if I say "no, he shoudn't"? Hell, I'm not even allowed to have an empty can of beer in the car with me. I don't see why anyone in his right mind should drag a month's supply of a narcotic around with him. This must make it difficult to legaly return beer cans for recycling. So how should people get their medication home, walk I guess. And as he was not charged with operating a vehical under the influence. Quote: Only if the jury doesn't believe him. Just because he says he wasn't trafficking doesn't mean that he wasn't. If you find me sitting outside of your house in the middle of the night with a set of lock picks, are you going to take my word for it that, no, I'm not planning a burglary; I always walk around at night with burglary tools in my pockets? Look he had a couple of days supply for a serious addict, Rush could go through that in a weekend, so obviously rush should have been charged with trafficing because of the ammounts of drugs he was getting.
	__________________ Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no poofing in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin

14th August 2007, 08:43 AM	#31
strathmeyer seriously unable to be serious Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Pittsburgh, PA, USA Posts: 2,382	Originally Posted by MelBrooksfan That's how most of them work. If you have greater than quantity X they nail you for intent to sell and the like. I'm sorry; I understand the laws and was unable to satirize my disbelief in a properly coherent way. By extreme disbelief, in fact, made me incoherent. I'm better now.

14th August 2007, 10:07 AM	#32
chulbert Muse Join Date: May 2002 Location: Rochester, NY Posts: 725	Originally Posted by ponderingturtle So he should not carry his medication with him? Vicodin? On a job that requires driving? No, I don't think so. Quote: So if you have a perscription for say one pill every 12 hours and just take the bottle with you, you deserve a 20 year prison sentance for that. No, I don't think he deserves 20 years of prison. However, I also doubt he was "just a man with his pain pills".

14th August 2007, 10:25 AM	#33
pgwenthold Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Posts: 12,067	Originally Posted by chulbert No, I don't think he deserves 20 years of prison. However, I also doubt he was "just a man with his pain pills". I tend to agree, but then again, isn't that for a jury to decide? And while I tend to think that the prescription doesn't mean much (it is perfectly possible to deal vicodin by getting a prescription) it is definately information that the defense should be allowed to present. Again, it is for the jury to determine whether it is relevent or not, and it should not get in the way of a good prosecution. IOW, I think the prosecutor should be able to prove trafficking beyond the level of mere possession. You and drkitten are correct. The case against him is not that he has Vicodin in his possession, but in a vehicle? Prescribed or not, that is not something that makes sense. But I repeat, that's for a jury to decide and pretty much irrelevent to the point.
	__________________ "Baseball is a philosophy. The primordial ooze that once ruled our world has been captured in perpetual motion. Baseball is the moment. Its ever changing patterns are hypnotizing yet invigorating. Baseball is an art form. Classic and at the same time...progressive. Baseball is pre-historic and post-modern. Baseball is here to stay." (Stolen from the side of a lava lamp box, and modified slightly)

14th August 2007, 10:31 AM	#34
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Tarrytown, NY Posts: 26,421	Originally Posted by chulbert Vicodin? On a job that requires driving? No, I don't think so. Where is your evidence that it effects driving when taken in a manor perscribed by legitimate doctors? I know that shortly after my mother came home from her double knee replacement, she would drive herself to rehab, and was certainly on narcotic pain killers. Quote: No, I don't think he deserves 20 years of prison. However, I also doubt he was "just a man with his pain pills". Evidence?
	__________________ Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no poofing in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin

14th August 2007, 10:31 AM	#35
Miss Anthrope All your post are belong to us Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: A Tiny Oasis in the PNW Posts: 3,597	Originally Posted by pgwenthold I tend to agree, but then again, isn't that for a jury to decide? And while I tend to think that the prescription doesn't mean much (it is perfectly possible to deal vicodin by getting a prescription) it is definately information that the defense should be allowed to present. Again, it is for the jury to determine whether it is relevent or not, and it should not get in the way of a good prosecution. IOW, I think the prosecutor should be able to prove trafficking beyond the level of mere possession. You and drkitten are correct. The case against him is not that he has Vicodin in his possession, but in a vehicle? Prescribed or not, that is not something that makes sense. But I repeat, that's for a jury to decide and pretty much irrelevent to the point. Agreed. The fact that he cannot introduce his prescription at all tells me the trial cannot be fair. Thus, I don't support his retrial. I know that's a position that can be criticized, but, it's where I stand.
	__________________ We're not elected officials, nor are we paid professionals. You want us to act as such? Fine. Cough up the cash - because as a professional, I don't come cheap."-Jmercer, who happens to rock.[/color]

14th August 2007, 10:33 AM	#36
slingblade Guest Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 23,642	Because of my mom, I'm in a house full of morphine right now. It scares me a bit. A friend of mine was charged with manslaughter, because when her husband died from cancer, she negelected to throw away all his medications. She didn't get rid of very much of his stuff; her grief was too fresh. One night, a friend came over, with a couple of young people in tow. At some point, one of the teens went to the bathroom, then wandered into the bedroom without permission, dug around, found the oxycontin, and took...I don't know how many; more than one. And he died. IIRC, she was convicted. I don't know if she ever served any time, or got probation; I moved away and never heard. But I had talked to her many times during the whole mess. She was not only grieving two people, she was terrified. And frankly, she hadn't even thought about someone taking those pills, hadn't thought to throw them away. It seemed to me more like the kid killed himself with stupidity. Apparently the law didn't see it that way. BTW, Mom is doing fine.
slingblade Guest Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 23,642